Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/31] block: Make bdrv_round_to_clusters() signature more useful

[John Snow]

On 04/26/2017 05:47 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/26/2017 04:41 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/17/2017 09:33 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> In the process of converting sector-based interfaces to bytes,
>>> I'm finding it easier to represent a byte count as a 64-bit
>>> integer at the block layer (even if we are internally capped
>>> by SIZE_MAX or even INT_MAX for individual transactions, it's
>>> still nicer to not have to worry about truncation/overflow
>>> issues on as many variables).  Update the signature of
>>> bdrv_round_to_clusters() to uniformly use uint64_t, matching
>>                                             ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> While we're here, since you went with int64_t in the end, what steered
>> you away from uint64_t, or was that just a thinko?
> 
> Later patches were made easier with signed (the compiler complained when
> I mixed signed and unsigned pointers).
> 
>>
>> (AFAICT: off_t is usually something like int64_t, so your choice makes
>> sense to me, generally.)
> 
> Indeed, and that's something I should update my commit message to mention.
> 
>>
>> --js
>>
>>> the signature already chosen for bdrv_is_allocated, and
>>> adjust clients according to the required fallout.
> 
> If you want me to try and use uint64_t *pnum instead of int64_t *pnum
> throughout both my series 1  (the changes to bdrv_is_allocated) and this
> one, it will take more effort.  I'll do it if there's a reason, but I'd
> rather not if the signed version is good enough.
> 

No, I didn't mean to imply you should, I was just pointing out the
commit message typo. int64_t is likely the correct choice for a number
of reasons, at least being able to return -1 from functions returning a
byte offset being the chief reason.

--js

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature